The Politics Thread 2020

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

1 minute ago, cstand said:

I had a relative work for the VAT department for over 35 years they joked about going to VAT n fiddle so may be another pub, but every Thursday they went.

Gap year was do want ever you wanted too.

Took early retirement at 57 years old with an offer he could not refuse to keep the unions quiet all at the taxpayers expense.

My post is certainly not a load a crap it’s all true.

No employer lets you leave work and come in when you want without reviewing it on a regular basis.  No employer allows you to take a year off at will without valid reason. No employer would pay you to go to the pub every Thursday or ring constantly having days of with no notice. The government would not give someone a payoff at 57 unless it was closing a department and it was in lieu of a lump sum It would not be economical .  As his employer is the government he is entitled to a payoff if made redundant within the terms of his contract same as everyone unless it through an official receiver. Lets not forget as a taxpayer himself he pays as much of a contribution to his own payoff as anyone else.  I think your relative is winding you up somewhat .  I can tell you with certainty that ground level civil servants have been properly shafted over the last ten years . There departments do still offer good sick pay if they have to but I'm sure that will change over time.

[uttoxram75]

17 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

Some big claims there!

Yep, pretty much backed up by a lot of stuff out there.

I'd be interested to know which claims you think are incorrect.

I think Cummings is an advisor who is working to destroy public services in order to maximise profit for the private sector. I happen to believe that will make my country a nastier place to live with little or no safety nets for the majority of us.

To me, austerity should start at the top, not the bottom. 

[Van der MoodHoover]

4 hours ago, uttoxram75 said:

Yep, pretty much backed up by a lot of stuff out there.

I'd be interested to know which claims you think are incorrect.

I think Cummings is an advisor who is working to destroy public services in order to maximise profit for the private sector. I happen to believe that will make my country a nastier place to live with little or no safety nets for the majority of us.

To me, austerity should start at the top, not the bottom. 

Yes....the hubris of those given a bit of power to believe themselves indispensable is remarkable. 

[G STAR RAM]

7 hours ago, uttoxram75 said:

Yep, pretty much backed up by a lot of stuff out there.

I'd be interested to know which claims you think are incorrect.

I think Cummings is an advisor who is working to destroy public services in order to maximise profit for the private sector. I happen to believe that will make my country a nastier place to live with little or no safety nets for the majority of us.

To me, austerity should start at the top, not the bottom. 

Hasnt Boris been announcing an unprecedented amount of spending on public services?

If so, it would appear that Cummings doesnt hold as much power as people are claiming or that he isn't out to destroy public services as you have suggested?

 

[GboroRam]

18 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Hasnt Boris been announcing an unprecedented amount of spending on public services?

If so, it would appear that Cummings doesnt hold as much power as people are claiming or that he isn't out to destroy public services as you have suggested?

 

I'll judge Boris' spending promises on results. Watch for the sleight of hand common with Conservative spending promises - it either is funded from internal efficiency savings, or already committed funding, or money is taken from one pocket to fill the other. Boris has form on this. 

[uttoxram75]

1 hour ago, G STAR RAM said:

Hasnt Boris been announcing an unprecedented amount of spending on public services?

If so, it would appear that Cummings doesnt hold as much power as people are claiming or that he isn't out to destroy public services as you have suggested?

 

I hope I'm wrong and you're right!

[Angry Ram]

Quite like that Lisa Nandy, she might even  give the Tories a challenge. 
Long-Bailey, what a complete plank. No chance if Labour ever getting into power with her at the helm. 

[G STAR RAM]

3 hours ago, GboroRam said:

I'll judge Boris' spending promises on results. Watch for the sleight of hand common with Conservative spending promises - it either is funded from internal efficiency savings, or already committed funding, or money is taken from one pocket to fill the other. Boris has form on this. 

I cant think of many other places where the money comes from?

Unless he steals another one of Corbyns policies and plants 2 billion money trees to help the environment?

[1of4]

34 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

I cant think of many other places where the money comes from?

Unless he steals another one of Corbyns policies and plants 2 billion money trees to help the environment?

Taxes from all the extra exports, that will be generated from all those great trade deals we've signed up to. Mmm Maybe not.

[G STAR RAM]

30 minutes ago, 1of4 said:

Taxes from all the extra exports, that will be generated from all those great trade deals we've signed up to. Mmm Maybe not.

Doubt it, the country was coming to a standstill the day after Brexit remember. Mmm maybe not

[Uptherams]

I like this idea of the Chinese organisation constructing HS2 in 5 years and under budget. Give them the contract. Maybe this is the Boris plan. Money saved will then be invested into the rest of the rail network and this bridge between Ireland and Scotland. Chinese contractors again here too. All projects completed by the end of the decade. 

[1of4]

53 minutes ago, Uptherams said:

I like this idea of the Chinese organisation constructing HS2 in 5 years and under budget. Give them the contract. Maybe this is the Boris plan. Money saved will then be invested into the rest of the rail network and this bridge between Ireland and Scotland. Chinese contractors again here too. All projects completed by the end of the decade. 

No bother with China building HS2. Not sure how all the low paid Chinese workers,  that will be needed to get it built on time and on budget, will get a work permit.

[AndyinLiverpool]

1 hour ago, Uptherams said:

I like this idea of the Chinese organisation constructing HS2 in 5 years and under budget. Give them the contract. Maybe this is the Boris plan. Money saved will then be invested into the rest of the rail network and this bridge between Ireland and Scotland. Chinese contractors again here too. All projects completed by the end of the decade. 

I thought one of the major themes of the new sunlit uplands was that we were going to do things ourselves. 

[Carl Sagan]

Looking across the Atlantic, it's interesting Bloomberg is second favourite behind Trump, even though he's also second favourite behind Sanders. [These are UK-based Oddschecker odds]

Presumably the money is going this way because most punters think Bernie can't beat Trump, but if Bloomberg can beat Bernie (tough) he'll have a much better chance. Basically the Democrat activists have gone all Corbyn-like so you can argue anyone who wins the nomination is way too extreme to have a chance of winning the Presidency. However, the spanner in the works is Bloomberg's vast personal fortune. He's already spent obscene amounts (hundreds of millions of dollars) on political ads such as this one

hoping America's love of the Karate Kid will see him win. Can he buy the Presidency?

Bloomberg officially enters the race on Tuesday 3rd March (Super Tuesday) when the big states all vote. That's where he's investing his money in the hope of lots of delegates. It also means he's staying out of the fray while the other candidates beat each other up. By then it might well be only Sanders and Buttigieg left standing against him.

[Uptherams]

2 hours ago, AndyinLiverpool said:

I thought one of the major themes of the new sunlit uplands was that we were going to do things ourselves. 

So says who? 

[Uptherams]

3 hours ago, 1of4 said:

No bother with China building HS2. Not sure how all the low paid Chinese workers,  that will be needed to get it built on time and on budget, will get a work permit.

The government have announced they are introducing a points based system to immigration. Projects such as this will be treated under it's own unique circumstances, just like at times, many other sectors will too. They also won't need to be low paid. The project is ridiculously overpriced by potential UK tenders. Even 10,000 workers paid £50,000 a year for 5 years only equates to £2.5bn. 

[Highgate]

4 minutes ago, Carl Sagan said:

Looking across the Atlantic, it's interesting Bloomberg is second favourite behind Trump, even though he's also second favourite behind Sanders. [These are UK-based Oddschecker odds]

Presumably the money is going this way because most punters think Bernie can't beat Trump, but if Bloomberg can beat Bernie (tough) he'll have a much better chance. Basically the Democrat activists have gone all Corbyn-like so you can argue anyone who wins the nomination is way too extreme to have a chance of winning the Presidency. However, the spanner in the works is Bloomberg's vast personal fortune. He's already spent obscene amounts (hundreds of millions of dollars) on political ads such as this one

Yeah, that must be it all right and that is how most pundits are calling it, they believe Bernie is too far left to win a presidential election against Trump.

I tend not to agree actually.  For a start, how far right is Trump?  Has that hindered his chances, or did it help him get the Republican vote out?   Most Democratic voters when ask...seem to say they'll vote for any Democratic candidate in the Presidential election, regardless of who wins the Nomination.  So, it's really only the narrow sliver of independents in the centre who may be scared off by Bernie's taxes on the rich and healthcare for all.  The perennially undecided in the US seems to be only a few % either way.  The biggest constituency that candidates need to tap into in this election is the > 40% of the US voting eligible population that doesn't usually vote in elections at all.  Energizing these people could be the winning and losing of the election.  Bloomberg is a tepid debater and has done and said a lot of things that will annoy and worry minority voters (a huge section of the Democrats vote).

The 2020 US election may be far more about motivation than moderation and in that regard Bernie is far better suited to the task than Bloomberg in my opinion.

[Carl Sagan]

17 minutes ago, Highgate said:

Yeah, that must be it all right and that is how most pundits are calling it, they believe Bernie is too far left to win a presidential election against Trump.

I tend not to agree actually.  For a start, how far right is Trump?  Has that hindered his chances, or did it help him get the Republican vote out?   Most Democratic voters when ask...seem to say they'll vote for any Democratic candidate in the Presidential election, regardless of who wins the Nomination.  So, it's really only the narrow sliver of independents in the centre who may be scared off by Bernie's taxes on the rich and healthcare for all.  The perennially undecided in the US seems to be only a few % either way.  The biggest constituency that candidates need to tap into in this election is the > 40% of the US voting eligible population that doesn't usually vote in elections at all.  Energizing these people could be the winning and losing of the election.  Bloomberg is a tepid debater and has done and said a lot of things that will annoy and worry minority voters (a huge section of the Democrats vote).

The 2020 US election may be far more about motivation than moderation and in that regard Bernie is far better suited to the task than Bloomberg in my opinion.

You're right I think Bloomberg's problem is that he wouldn't get the vote out. However, I think most of America is so terrified of socialism, Sanders would get the vote out against him.

You ask "How far right is Trump?" Trump's been a registered Democrat mostly so I suspect plenty of Democrats would vote for him ahead of Bernie. Also, you mustn't forget his vast popularity as a TV star (way better known than any politician) in a show in which he came across as a great businessman and good mates with everyone from ethnically and sexually diverse backgrounds. Giving money to many good social causes. So American voters are very skeptical of the media painting him differently. I've always thought the main reason he switched to the Republicans was so he wouldn't have to contest the Democrat nomination with his good friend Hilary Clinton. Once becoming a Republican, all he was interested in was saying what he had to in order to win the nomination. Had the Democrats "reached out" to him after his election he'd probably have gone for  Democrat-style agenda as he mainly just wants to be loved and popular. Instead the vocal ones marched and called him a Nazi and a racist so he stuck two fingers up at them.

I think Bernie's problem is he's been a politician a long time. During that time he's sung the praises of Fidel Castro and told Americans why Cuba/Nicaragua/Russia are so much better than their country. And asked why can't America have really high tax rates like Scandinavia? Those quotes would be blasted into every American home for months and Trump would win almost every state.

[Highgate]

1 hour ago, Carl Sagan said:

You're right I think Bloomberg's problem is that he wouldn't get the vote out. However, I think most of America is so terrified of socialism, Sanders would get the vote out against him.

You ask "How far right is Trump?" Trump's been a registered Democrat mostly so I suspect plenty of Democrats would vote for him ahead of Bernie. Also, you mustn't forget his vast popularity as a TV star (way better known than any politician) in a show in which he came across as a great businessman and good mates with everyone from ethnically and sexually diverse backgrounds. Giving money to many good social causes. So American voters are very skeptical of the media painting him differently. I've always thought the main reason he switched to the Republicans was so he wouldn't have to contest the Democrat nomination with his good friend Hilary Clinton. Once becoming a Republican, all he was interested in was saying what he had to in order to win the nomination. Had the Democrats "reached out" to him after his election he'd probably have gone for  Democrat-style agenda as he mainly just wants to be loved and popular. Instead the vocal ones marched and called him a Nazi and a racist so he stuck two fingers up at them.

I think Bernie's problem is he's been a politician a long time. During that time he's sung the praises of Fidel Castro and told Americans why Cuba/Nicaragua/Russia are so much better than their country. And asked why can't America have really high tax rates like Scandinavia? Those quotes would be blasted into every American home for months and Trump would win almost every state.

There is quite a lot I'd disagree with there, but I would agree in the US, the word socialism still has a stigma attached and strikes fear into the minds of many Americans.  A legacy of how effective US Cold War propaganda was perhaps.  I'd also agree that some of Sanders historic comments will haunt him and they will certainly be used as ammunition against him. 

I disagree that many Democrats would vote for Trump over Bernie.  It matters very little what Trump's views were back in his business man or TV celeb days (he's clearly not a religious conservative like so many Republicans are).  All that will matter to voters is what sort of President Trump has been in the last 4 years and what sort of President he will be for the next 4.  Given his policy decisions and character it's not surprise that his approval rating among Democratic voters are at an all time low for any Republican President.  I can't see many Democratic voters jumping ship, even if the term 'socialism' terrifies them to an unnatural extent.

Strangely, Bernie's policies taken one by one are actually quite popular to very popular right across the US, even among many Republicans, as long as they are not told they are Bernie's policies..or labelled 'socialism'.

I can't agree that the media is painting Trump in a negative manner that he somehow doesn't deserve.  It's quite obvious what's he's like...he lets everyone know by his tweets and every time he opens his mouth. He is every bit the narcissistic vindictive bully that he appears to be.  He's also undoubtedly sexist and his pining for Norwegian immigrants rather than those from ****hole countries can but leave us with serious misgivings about his attitudes to race. The part he has played in the ripping up of nuclear arms treaties as well as his ignorance and dismissal of climate change make him a truly dangerous man to have in the White House, not just for the US but for the entire world.  No, I don't think the negative opinion of him in many quarters can be blamed on media bias.

Once he became a Republican President, I don't think he ever intended in reaching out to Democrats.  He needed to look after those who elected him, that's why for example, he's now such a fervent supporter of the 2nd amendment now even though he was against it as a private citizen.  He knows what the Republican electorate want.  Also he has always seem hellbent on destroying everything that Obama touched. Torching Obama's legacy seems to have been a great motivator for Trump. Above all else his most important constituency has always been that of the super wealthy, whom he has handsomely served since he got into office via lavish tax cuts despite the spiraling national debt. 

When did Bernie say that Cuba/Nicaragua/Russia were so much better than the US ?  Are you sure he wasn't just pointing out aspects of other countries that were better/fairer than the US at the time?  Surely the US can't be expected to be the greatest country in every respect all the time. 

Needless to say I think you are underestimating Bernie's chances.  But as you say, even the bookies seem to agree with you at the moment.

 

 

[1of4]

Johnson and his mates in No10 look if they're determined to scrap the licence fee and replace it with a subscription service. Meaning the possible loss of many of it's TV channels and radio stations including local and regional programming. Plus cutting back on it's website.

Apparently Johnson wants  the Beeb to retain the world service, not sure they'd get many subscribers to it in the UK.

The more I hear about what the tories want to do with the BBC the more it sounds as if they want to control it for their own purposes.